Trends in Ecology & Evolution
ReviewHow understanding aboveground–belowground linkages can assist restoration ecology
Section snippets
The linking of two emerging fields of research
Terrestrial ecosystems are comprised of two distinct components or compartments, one aboveground and the other belowground. The role of interactions between these two components in driving community and ecosystem properties is an emerging area of research which has seen several conceptual advances over the past decade 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. As a result, there is increasing recognition that aboveground and belowground components of ecosystems are strongly linked through a variety of both direct and
Conceptual framework
Ecological restoration can either follow a holistic approach through focusing on the disturbed ecosystem ‘as a whole’, or a more targeted approach concentrating on particular ecosystem components or properties. Effective implementation of either approach requires a full understanding of aboveground–belowground linkages across multiple levels of ecological organization. Here, we present a conceptual framework (Box 1) which is based on explicit recognition that (1) interventions during
Restoration of degraded and abandoned lands
Restoration of (semi-)natural ecosystems after cessation of human land use such as mining and agriculture is frequently performed to aid biodiversity conservation [62]. Consideration of aboveground–belowground linkages can inform intervention practices guiding the successional development towards the historical (or desired) ecosystem state, as has been shown for the restoration of species-rich grasslands on ex-arable land (Box 2). Inter-dependent groups of organisms may differ greatly in their
Conclusions
Counteracting human-induced transformation and degradation of natural ecosystems necessitates active ecological restoration and intervention. Although many questions remain unanswered (Box 4), there have been significant recent advances in our understanding of the links and feedbacks between the aboveground and belowground subsystems, and this in turn has great potential to advance the field of restoration ecology. As we illustrate through our conceptual framework (Box 1) and three examples,
Acknowledgements
We thank Gerlinde De Deyn, Wim van der Putten, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.
References (100)
Biological invasions: Linking the aboveground and belowground consequences
Appl. Soil Ecol.
(2006)Linking above- and belowground multitrophic interactions of plants, herbivores, pathogens, and their antagonists
Trends Ecol. Evol.
(2001)Linkages between below and aboveground communities: Decomposer responses to simulated tree species loss are largely additive
Soil Biol. Biochem.
(2009)Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology
Trends Ecol. Evol.
(2004)Restoration through reassembly: plant traits and invasion resistance
Trends Ecol. Evol.
(2008)- et al.
Threshold models in restoration and conservation: a developing framework
Trends Ecol. Evol.
(2009) Soilborne microorganisms of Euphorbia are potential biological control agents of the invasive weed leafy spurge
Appl. Soil Ecol.
(2006)- et al.
Constraints in the restoration of ecological diversity in grassland and heathland communities
Trends Ecol. Evol.
(1999) Contrasting diversity patterns for soil mites and nematodes in secondary succession
Acta Oecol.
(2009)Soil food web structure during ecosystem development after land abandonment
Appl. Soil Ecol.
(2008)